I never said we don't have problems, but ours are not as bad as yours. I have never heard of a UK law that I thought was good, just one oppression after another.
The fact is that the whole world is descending into oppression and socialism. America is just at the trailing edge of that descent. We enjoy far more freedoms than most places.
And there are large groups of people in our country who recognize how far down we've gone and we're working to reverse that trend. America will enter a civil war before we allow the kind of socialism we see in places like Germany.
We may end up with socialism anyway, but we won't take it lying down. Just like the American Colonies wouldn't accept the king's oppression.
Well, we're talking about the UK and this story illustrates why the American Colonists rejected Britain... they refused to bow and scrape before some self-important oppressive monarch.
We didn't wait until families were disappearing. I write this to encourage our British brethren to do the same. Stand up and recognize your own inherent sovereignty.
For us Americans, it was a tax. What will it be for you Brits? We in America are priming for another revolution. It would be great if all free people joined together to stop the onslaught on our Liberties.
And that's why the UK has accepted it... the UK people are weak willed sheep.
America was founded by a totally different sort of person. The Founding Fathers revolted over TAXES. Why? Because they had a strong sense of their individual rights and refused to roll over and accept their rights being trampled.
The British people clearly do not value Liberty in the same way.
Um, there were no "entire families disappearing in the night" that prompted the American Revolution... there was a tax.
People who have no sense of Liberty wait until families start disappearing. People who are proud and have a strong sense of their rights don't wait NEARLY that long.
As James Madison said: "We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."
That means we don't wait until families start to disappear. We start causing a ruckus when our birthday parties get raided.
This garbage really pisses me off. The next time one of you whiny little maggots start crying about how some criminal got off the hook and you start to say "We should have 'tougher laws' to fix this", think about this story... this is what "tougher laws" get you... a super uptight nit-picking police force that busts up a RUTTIN' BIRTHDAY PARTY because it used the "wrong words" in the invitation.
This needs to be the main focus of digital rights, at least right now. When I buy something, I should have the right to transfer it to any media form I deem proper for my own uses. Heck, if I wanted to transfer my DVDs to BetaMax, I should have the right (of course, the reverse is also true and the more likely/useful application of this theory).
Nothing has assured me of the accuracy and correctness of my stance than the ludicrous terminology that associates me with those who deny that the holocaust happened.
Indeed, no one who uses the term "Global Warming Denier" can call themselves either a scientist or even a friend of science. It is a bold-faced appeal to emotion to use such idiotic terminology.
Um, the term "Hobbits" has been applied to this species almost from the beginning and by almost every news source. This is a valid scientific discussion and if you have a problem with the term "Hobbits", take it up with the scientists, don't blame Slashdot.
In conclusion, you are a filthy whiner and good riddance.
But the Earth's movement has been proven through empirical evidence. No such evidence exists for the existence of non-existence of God. You can't prove it either way and so give the ID advocates their half-hour lesson and move on.
That's the irritating thing about this whole argument: no one is suggesting that kids get an entire semester of ID. They want it mentioned. Heck, we all learned that pre-Columbus, people thought the Earth was flat. We learned that tidbit and moved on with the rest of the lesson. Why can't we do that with ID? "This is some people's theory about all of this. This is what most scientists believe about this. Let's move on."
No, it says that Congress has the power to secure it, if Congress so wishes. There is no Constitutional obligation, though.
So, yes. You were suggesting the government pursue such a policy. My entire line of argument was to prove how ridiculous and wrong this original statement of yours was. Then you sidetracked the discussion into whether the 4th Amendment applies. Based on your original statement "if Congress so wishes", it is perfectly reasonable to bring the 4th Amendment in.
Congress cannot do something simply if it "wishes" to, as your original post suggests. You're right, it is ridiculous to think that Congress would do this, which was my point from the beginning.
Now that I've clearly shown how the 4th Amendment applies in your scenario, you want to say that I'm changing the topic. Well, with all respect, that is bullshit, counselor.
I don't recall that it is settled that deception necessarily requires probable cause
So what? "Everything is the way it is until it isn't anymore." That's how we get "Landmark Cases", counselor. To settle things that aren't settled. But in order to GET it settled, someone has to make an argument that has never been made before. It's called being a lawyer. Simply parroting back what the SCOTUS has said in the past requires no creativity or ingenuity. Lawyers who can't think outside of the narrow scope set by precedent are parasites living off of the creativity and ingenuity of real lawyers.
P.S. Did I notice a gratuitous "sua sponte" thrown in there? Didn't they tell you in law school that trying to work those terms into everyday conversations is kind of a douche thing to do?
This isn't about Alice not getting a copyright, which would clearly only trigger the 5th amendment (on a federal issue). This is about the government having no intention of giving Alice a copyright... THAT is where I think the 4th amendment comes in.
The state actor (the copyright office in this case) takes the property (book) under the pretext of reviewing it for a possible grant (copyright), but with no actual intention to do so. Alice would not have given the property (book) if the true intent was manifest from the beginning, thus intruding on her privacy.
The violation of 4th amendment privacy stems from the government's inducement to convey information (privacy) based on a fraudulent representation of the government actor's purpose. There is a distinction between not granting a copyright and not intending to grant a copyright.
Such government deception is acceptable when there is probable cause, which it clearly would not be here. This is not a case where the police trick a drug dealer into confessing or letting them into his apartment. Probable cause justifies the deception in that case.
It is IP as soon as it is created. If it wasn't, there would be nothing to protect. When you get a copyright/patent, you are protecting what already exists, not creating what doesn't exist.
The question is not, "Is it IP?", the question is, "Is it protected IP?"
Capitalism does not lead inevitably to corporatism. Corporatism is the artificial support (known as "regulations") given to artificial entities (known as "corporations") by government. Name one corporation that controlled everything in the US in the 1800s. You can't because it didn't happen when we were following the Free Market (pure capitalism) system. It's when that bastard Keynes and his ilk came into town that things got screwed up.
Lessig is awesome. The problem isn't in the theory, it's with the SCROTUM... I mean the SCOTUS. As I've always said: We don't need more laws, we need better judges.
These would *all* come back if we eliminated regulation.
Wow! If that's not hyperbolic scaremongering, I don't know what is. How in the hell is slavery going to come back? Even without government regulation, we still have the 13th amendment. Slavery is still illegal. How would deregulation change that?
And child labor?!? You forget that "child labor" is what pulled MANY families through the last depression. No parent wants to see their child having to work to help the family survive, but if the choice is between having your child work or having your child starve, I choose to have them work. The government's decision to stop child labor is a heavy handed "I know what's best for you and your family" attempt at control. And let's remember that the vast majority of what we call "child labor" today was performed by teens. We say that teens can't work and now we have a rise in juvenile crime and teen pregnancies. I'm not saying there is causation, but there is clearly some correlation which should not be ignored.
Finally, and most ridiculous, we come to the myth of the 40 hour work week. Whatever idiot came up with the idea that 40 hours is the ideal that should be imposed on all businesses should be shot. What makes 40 hours the magic number that we should all bow to? If you ever hope to "make it" in this world, you are going to be working far more than 40 hours a week. We don't need government regulation to tell us how many hours we can work. Let that be decided between employees and employers.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that complete deregulation is proper, but you picked the three absolute worst examples to make your point.
I don't think it's that absurd. I too, am an attorney, and I can see making the argument. I've argued some pretty big stretches. You have to, sometimes, to protect all of your client's rights.
I would argue 4th amendment on the grounds that by taking possession of the book (seizure) and reading it (search) without the intention of giving it a fair and just opportunity of receiving a copyright violates probable cause. Government actors cannot take any action without probable cause. At least that is the argument I would make. There is no precedent, but that is how Constitutional law is established. Lawyers first make the argument.
And, as I said, I am an attorney. I know the difference between the 5th and 14th amendments. But the 14th amendment provides a higher standard of protection. I would argue that the Federal government should not be held to a lower standard than the states.
Sure, I think the 5th amendment is sufficient, but you don't only argue what is sufficient, you argue everything you can conceive of.
Slashdot Mirror
He's saying that humans are hung better than gorillas, not that he has a gorilla penis.
Is that why it's called the "flu"? Har Har Har.
I never said we don't have problems, but ours are not as bad as yours. I have never heard of a UK law that I thought was good, just one oppression after another.
The fact is that the whole world is descending into oppression and socialism. America is just at the trailing edge of that descent. We enjoy far more freedoms than most places.
And there are large groups of people in our country who recognize how far down we've gone and we're working to reverse that trend. America will enter a civil war before we allow the kind of socialism we see in places like Germany.
We may end up with socialism anyway, but we won't take it lying down. Just like the American Colonies wouldn't accept the king's oppression.
Well, we're talking about the UK and this story illustrates why the American Colonists rejected Britain... they refused to bow and scrape before some self-important oppressive monarch.
We didn't wait until families were disappearing. I write this to encourage our British brethren to do the same. Stand up and recognize your own inherent sovereignty.
For us Americans, it was a tax. What will it be for you Brits? We in America are priming for another revolution. It would be great if all free people joined together to stop the onslaught on our Liberties.
And that's why the UK has accepted it... the UK people are weak willed sheep.
America was founded by a totally different sort of person. The Founding Fathers revolted over TAXES. Why? Because they had a strong sense of their individual rights and refused to roll over and accept their rights being trampled.
The British people clearly do not value Liberty in the same way.
Um, there were no "entire families disappearing in the night" that prompted the American Revolution... there was a tax.
People who have no sense of Liberty wait until families start disappearing. People who are proud and have a strong sense of their rights don't wait NEARLY that long.
As James Madison said: "We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."
That means we don't wait until families start to disappear. We start causing a ruckus when our birthday parties get raided.
This garbage really pisses me off. The next time one of you whiny little maggots start crying about how some criminal got off the hook and you start to say "We should have 'tougher laws' to fix this", think about this story... this is what "tougher laws" get you... a super uptight nit-picking police force that busts up a RUTTIN' BIRTHDAY PARTY because it used the "wrong words" in the invitation.
This needs to be the main focus of digital rights, at least right now. When I buy something, I should have the right to transfer it to any media form I deem proper for my own uses. Heck, if I wanted to transfer my DVDs to BetaMax, I should have the right (of course, the reverse is also true and the more likely/useful application of this theory).
Except that Murray has a tendency to also be in some really crappy movies.
Nothing has assured me of the accuracy and correctness of my stance than the ludicrous terminology that associates me with those who deny that the holocaust happened.
Indeed, no one who uses the term "Global Warming Denier" can call themselves either a scientist or even a friend of science. It is a bold-faced appeal to emotion to use such idiotic terminology.
No, our system doesn't dispense "justice", which is why I'm a defense attorney.
Um, the term "Hobbits" has been applied to this species almost from the beginning and by almost every news source. This is a valid scientific discussion and if you have a problem with the term "Hobbits", take it up with the scientists, don't blame Slashdot.
In conclusion, you are a filthy whiner and good riddance.
But the Earth's movement has been proven through empirical evidence. No such evidence exists for the existence of non-existence of God. You can't prove it either way and so give the ID advocates their half-hour lesson and move on.
That's the irritating thing about this whole argument: no one is suggesting that kids get an entire semester of ID. They want it mentioned. Heck, we all learned that pre-Columbus, people thought the Earth was flat. We learned that tidbit and moved on with the rest of the lesson. Why can't we do that with ID? "This is some people's theory about all of this. This is what most scientists believe about this. Let's move on."
Name one church that is compulsory.
Biologists do not give a rattus' ass about theology.
Have you been reading even half the posts here? 99% of them are atheists ripping on the religious. It's just that /. doesn't get news coverage.
What's so wrong with leaving people be and letting them live their lives how they want and teach their children what they want to teach them.
the creationist side can't seem to find a single credentialed scientist that will say creationism is a scientific theory.
Not to nitpick, but they actually do have credentialed scientists claiming ID is a scientific theory. Take that how you will.
From your original post:
No, it says that Congress has the power to secure it, if Congress so wishes. There is no Constitutional obligation, though.
So, yes. You were suggesting the government pursue such a policy. My entire line of argument was to prove how ridiculous and wrong this original statement of yours was. Then you sidetracked the discussion into whether the 4th Amendment applies. Based on your original statement "if Congress so wishes", it is perfectly reasonable to bring the 4th Amendment in.
Congress cannot do something simply if it "wishes" to, as your original post suggests. You're right, it is ridiculous to think that Congress would do this, which was my point from the beginning.
Now that I've clearly shown how the 4th Amendment applies in your scenario, you want to say that I'm changing the topic. Well, with all respect, that is bullshit, counselor.
I don't recall that it is settled that deception necessarily requires probable cause
So what? "Everything is the way it is until it isn't anymore." That's how we get "Landmark Cases", counselor. To settle things that aren't settled. But in order to GET it settled, someone has to make an argument that has never been made before. It's called being a lawyer. Simply parroting back what the SCOTUS has said in the past requires no creativity or ingenuity. Lawyers who can't think outside of the narrow scope set by precedent are parasites living off of the creativity and ingenuity of real lawyers.
P.S. Did I notice a gratuitous "sua sponte" thrown in there? Didn't they tell you in law school that trying to work those terms into everyday conversations is kind of a douche thing to do?
This isn't about Alice not getting a copyright, which would clearly only trigger the 5th amendment (on a federal issue). This is about the government having no intention of giving Alice a copyright... THAT is where I think the 4th amendment comes in.
The state actor (the copyright office in this case) takes the property (book) under the pretext of reviewing it for a possible grant (copyright), but with no actual intention to do so. Alice would not have given the property (book) if the true intent was manifest from the beginning, thus intruding on her privacy.
The violation of 4th amendment privacy stems from the government's inducement to convey information (privacy) based on a fraudulent representation of the government actor's purpose. There is a distinction between not granting a copyright and not intending to grant a copyright.
Such government deception is acceptable when there is probable cause, which it clearly would not be here. This is not a case where the police trick a drug dealer into confessing or letting them into his apartment. Probable cause justifies the deception in that case.
In that case, I''ll see your "Racism Card" and counter with "Marxist Genocide".
The list of evils brought upon countries that adopt Marxism is far longer and much darker than any perceived evils perpetrated under Capitalism.
Decoy, I bet there's an interesting story behind your joining Slashdot. Why don't you share?
I'm not sure what this has to do with the current conversation. Is there a reason you ask?
Let's keep this kind of hyperbole where it belongs: in the Mainstream Media.
It is IP as soon as it is created. If it wasn't, there would be nothing to protect. When you get a copyright/patent, you are protecting what already exists, not creating what doesn't exist.
The question is not, "Is it IP?", the question is, "Is it protected IP?"
Capitalism does not lead inevitably to corporatism. Corporatism is the artificial support (known as "regulations") given to artificial entities (known as "corporations") by government. Name one corporation that controlled everything in the US in the 1800s. You can't because it didn't happen when we were following the Free Market (pure capitalism) system. It's when that bastard Keynes and his ilk came into town that things got screwed up.
Lessig is awesome. The problem isn't in the theory, it's with the SCROTUM... I mean the SCOTUS. As I've always said: We don't need more laws, we need better judges.
These would *all* come back if we eliminated regulation.
Wow! If that's not hyperbolic scaremongering, I don't know what is. How in the hell is slavery going to come back? Even without government regulation, we still have the 13th amendment. Slavery is still illegal. How would deregulation change that?
And child labor?!? You forget that "child labor" is what pulled MANY families through the last depression. No parent wants to see their child having to work to help the family survive, but if the choice is between having your child work or having your child starve, I choose to have them work. The government's decision to stop child labor is a heavy handed "I know what's best for you and your family" attempt at control. And let's remember that the vast majority of what we call "child labor" today was performed by teens. We say that teens can't work and now we have a rise in juvenile crime and teen pregnancies. I'm not saying there is causation, but there is clearly some correlation which should not be ignored.
Finally, and most ridiculous, we come to the myth of the 40 hour work week. Whatever idiot came up with the idea that 40 hours is the ideal that should be imposed on all businesses should be shot. What makes 40 hours the magic number that we should all bow to? If you ever hope to "make it" in this world, you are going to be working far more than 40 hours a week. We don't need government regulation to tell us how many hours we can work. Let that be decided between employees and employers.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that complete deregulation is proper, but you picked the three absolute worst examples to make your point.
I would argue 4th amendment on the grounds that by taking possession of the book (seizure) and reading it (search) without the intention of giving it a fair and just opportunity of receiving a copyright violates probable cause. Government actors cannot take any action without probable cause. At least that is the argument I would make. There is no precedent, but that is how Constitutional law is established. Lawyers first make the argument.
And, as I said, I am an attorney. I know the difference between the 5th and 14th amendments. But the 14th amendment provides a higher standard of protection. I would argue that the Federal government should not be held to a lower standard than the states.
Sure, I think the 5th amendment is sufficient, but you don't only argue what is sufficient, you argue everything you can conceive of.